“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.

Does Urban Farming Make Sense?

Should we build agricultural skyscrapers in-or-near our major cities? It’s certainly a cool idea. I think I’m going to put the notion that this is actually environmentally sound and feasible in my “too good to check” file. More plausibly, green roofs really are an environmentally sound idea, though not something with a good prospect for replacing farms.

Check out the article, it’s very cool. Here’s my take:

I think this would be really cool, but I can’t imagine this being economically feasible, except under extreme circumstances.

1. To locate this in a dense city would mean it would compete for land with the most expensive office and residential properties, where developers pay huge land prices to build in those locations. They build there because the most productive companies and individuals desire to locate there and can pay for it. The competition from farms, of all things, would drive prices for office and residential even higher.
Perhaps, it might make sense to locate on less desirable urban land such as near highways or industry.

2. Construction costs of building vertical are enormous. Especially compared to the construction cost of traditional farms: nearly 0.

3. Labor costs: city labor is much more expensive than rural labor. Perhaps the skyfarm will be fully automated, but you’ll need engineers on site and other staff a typical farm does not require.

4. Traditionally, farms locate on land that is much less productive than agglomerative cities, which is why land is cheaper and farming can become profitable. Add in extraordinary construction costs, and it makes little economic sense. I can’t imagine farms competing with urban offices in productivity or profit per square foot.

5. The skyfarm probably isn’t so good for the environment. The construction materials used to build the structure must be transported from somewhere and required significant energy and resources to produce. This compared to a traditional farm, which requires little construction. The skyfarm would displace other productive uses such as offices, causing them to locate in less ideal places, and encouraging sprawl and transportation inefficiencies.
One should be skeptical of any “environmental” solution that costs significantly more than conventional alternatives, because there are often less obvious environmental costs reflected in the production costs of a higher-priced good.

The price of food would have to be really tremendous to justify the rent and production costs of food in this facility. I suppose, if it is good at generating energy, and cleaning water, that would offset some of the costs.

Or, the costs of transporting goods would have to astronomically higher than today, making it reasonable to have food grown nearby. However, if that were the case, land prices would be even higher in big cities and transporting construction materials would be more expensive.

Nonetheless, farming, or at least recreational green roofs could be effectively done in underutilized space, such as rooftops or building atriums. However, a green roof requires more structural material and construction than a conventional roof. But, where greenspace is scarce, it is often worth the cost.

If you assume that an acre of hydroponic “land” can support 10 people per year (a generous estimate), then 8,000 acres could support 80,000 people per year — or 1% of New York City’s population.

8,000 acres is roughly 348 million square feet, which, coincidentally, is almost exactly the size of Manhattan’s entire inventory of office space. So to meet just 1% of NYC’s annual food needs, you would have to find space in NYC to duplicate one of the planet’s great concentrations of skyscrapers.

Share this:

About Adam Hengels

Adam is passionate about urbanism, and founded this site in 2007, after realizing that classical liberals and urbanists actually share many objectives, despite being at odds in many spheres of the intellectual discussion. His mission is to improve the urban experience, and overcome obstacles that prevent aspiring city dwellers from living where they want. http://www.marketurbanism.com/adam-hengels/

Quiz: Let’s say we have two identical buildings, next to each other, in a dense city. Mine is filled with orange trees, and yours is filled with medical offices, advertising agencies, etc. After one year, which building will have produced more oranges?

If the answer is my building, then all that is needed is a zoning change, and the profit motive will do the rest.

If the answer is your building, then massive subsidies (or a philanthropist) would be needed to replace the office building with orange trees. Such subsidies would be taken from taxpayers in exchange for…a smaller chance of so-called “global warming”?

Faith rests on the unmeasurable and unverifiable. And it’s in the name of faith that people can be most easily duped into anything.

The environmental problem was solved long ago by the accumulation of wealth that enabled people to buy clean air. Poor people cannot afford catalytic converters, poor companies cannot afford efficient technologies, and people in rich countries can pay people in poor countries to produce pollution (and simultaneously make them better off).

One more thing: Agriculture is filthy business. Pesticides, fertilizer runoff, animal waste, flies, and so forth are not part of the romantic image of the “family farm” and so are generally not considered by the urban population.

And besides, we already have urban agriculture. It’s called a “plant nursery”. No subsidies needed.

Quiz: Let’s say we have two identical buildings, next to each other, in a dense city. Mine is filled with orange trees, and yours is filled with medical offices, advertising agencies, etc. After one year, which building will have produced more oranges?

If the answer is my building, then all that is needed is a zoning change, and the profit motive will do the rest.

If the answer is your building, then massive subsidies (or a philanthropist) would be needed to replace the office building with orange trees. Such subsidies would be taken from taxpayers in exchange for…a smaller chance of so-called “global warming”?

Faith rests on the unmeasurable and unverifiable. And it’s in the name of faith that people can be most easily duped into anything.

The environmental problem was solved long ago by the accumulation of wealth that enabled people to buy clean air. Poor people cannot afford catalytic converters, poor companies cannot afford efficient technologies, and people in rich countries can pay people in poor countries to produce pollution (and simultaneously make them better off).

One more thing: Agriculture is filthy business. Pesticides, fertilizer runoff, animal waste, flies, and so forth are not part of the romantic image of the “family farm” and so are generally not considered by the urban population.

And besides, we already have urban agriculture. It’s called a “plant nursery”. No subsidies needed.